• 1 Post
  • 267 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle


  • Seems my brain autofilled the concept in, with the post image being confused why someone would consider opposing morals to their own as terrible.

    “Moralality is subjective” is a common way to say “Well my morals are different than yours and that’s okay” to justify immoral behavior. With the image being confused about students acknowledging morals being culturally formed, while not entertaining debate on their own morals.

    Yes, morals are a subjective thing that only exist with a mind to perceive them.

    That doesn’t mean there aren’t right or wrong morals. That doesn’t mean anyone should entertain debate over the morality of whether, say for example, white supremacy is “just an opinion, bro”. There’s nothing confusing about acknowledging that it’s a mindset caused by culture, and also viewing it as a “moral monstrosity”.

    … I’m also posting these ramblings half asleep.




  • The misunderstanding I see here is in the definition of “subjective”.

    Subjective is often used interchangeably with opinion. And people can certainly have different opinions.

    But the subjective that is meant is that morals don’t exist without a subject, aka a mind to comprehend them.

    A rock exists whether or not a mind perceives the rock. The rock is objective. It is a physical object.

    The idea that it is wrong to harm someone for being different is subjective. It is an idea. A thought. The thought does not exist without a mind.

    So yes. Morals are all subjective. Morals do not exist in the physical world. Morals are not objects, they do not objectively exist. They exist within a subject. Morals subjectively exist.

    That does not mean that any set of morals is okay because it’s just an opinion, bro. Because it’s not just an opinion. Those subjective values effect objective reality.






  • That I was being complacent to support animal cruelty just because I liked egg salad and cream cheese.

    I was vegetarian for 7 years. I thought that only obvious things like meat and leather involved animal cruelty.

    I was very wrong. And when people showed me I was wrong, I took a good while to process it. “But the cow needs to be alive for milk. But the chicken needs to be alive for eggs. Surely it’s not THAT bad”.

    It’s a lot worse than that bad. Once it fully got through my skull just what kind of cruel practices were involved, not by choice l, but by industry NECESSITY, with the animal products that felt safe, I broke down crying while I was trying to reconcile the fact that I was letting my taste buds drive me to support terrible things.

    I did finally quit. These days I don’t really miss much, food wise. And life lesson wise, it helps enable me to be a less unethical consumer. A store/product is involved with something morally terrible, like donating a lot of money to fascism? Welp, bye! No more money for you from me!










  • I’ve heard a joke that utilizes a dollar boll for the execution normally. A challenge to find a bird, a National monument, a dairy product, and an award-winning film on the dollar.

    The joke is not legal to do. The first two are obvious and legal.

    1. An eagle
    2. The picture on the back
    3. Half & Half (tear it in half)
    4. Gone with the Wind (throw the pieces in the air)

    Not something people could feasibly do since it’s an expensive AND illegal joke, but would still be funny.